WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan
 

WHO agrees HIV circumcision plan

I am appalled that the WHO is supporting the sexual mutilation of boys as a way to prevent AIDS.
Female circumcision is generally considered a human rights violation, and so should be male circumcision.
Sexual mutilations should be condemned, not encouraged.

circumcision is also a religious act and we have to respect that, even if every religious thing is not always good

if men wanna have a circumcision because they think it's an opportunity to "protect" them from AIDS, then let's them have it
as far as it's a choice and not an obligation I guess it's ok

Circumcision is a guy choice. If they think it will prevent them from getting HIV. Then have it done...

99% of genital cuttings are done on young children (without anesthesia most of the time) who have no say on the matter, it's not a "choice".

Adults can do what they want to their own genitals, cut them, scar them, pierce them, whatever, but children should always be protected from body mutilations (including from their parents).

And this is the problem with this WHO push for circumcision. By encouraging adults to get circumcised in countries where the practice was marginal, it's going to lead parents to have their children circumcised as well.
Furthermore, female genital cutting is widespread in Africa, how can we convince an African family that cutting girls is "wrong" while cutting boys is "alright"?
Many cultures can give good reasons as to why it's better to cut the penis of boys, but many cultures can also give good reasons as to why it's better to cut the clitoris and/or labia of girls, does that make it right to do any of that on children?

I am strictly against any kind of genital cutting performed on minors, male or female, i don't think it can be wrong to cut a gender and alright to cut the other. I consider that the genital mutilation of children is a barbaric act that qualifies as a sexual assault.
Adults can do what they want to themselves, but children should be left untouched.

Unbelievable :bum:

Im circumcised, and Im really happy with it, it was done when I was three, Im 18, almost 19 now ,Im still hapy, it looks better, and if it helps to prevents HIV, better, but I still think its a guy´s choice to do it or not, not a parent´s choice.

I see two options to this entire mess...

1. Get circumcized as a child like normal.
2. Get Circumcized as an adult/older

___________________________________________

1. If you are unhappy that you were circumzied - then restore.
2. If you had it done as an adult - I don't know why you'd want to restore.



If it helps prevent HIV then it's for the better, even if you don't support it.

Also - Do not refer to it as "genitile mutilation"

If you use definition one - the word "irreparably" does not apply here. Becuase it can be corrected. So that option is tossed out. And if you use option two, the word "essential" is used. A foreskin is not essential - therefore that is no longer an argument that's valid. It has been, and always will be a parental choice.

It is safer and healthier to have a circumcision - some research says it dosen't matter, but at the same time. It's ONLY reserach. Not fact. Better to be safe than sorry.

Male circumcision aids in good health, and now helping prevent HIV.

Female cirumcision - can result in urinary tract infections, cysts, hemorrhaging and infertillity, it's not like it's the exact same operation used on a penis only with a vagina. The side effects are much different and much more severe than "Missing your foreskin" - which can be grown back anyways. That is why it is frowned upon.

Wise words, which I support to the bone. Penn and Teller: Bullshit! has a very good episode on circumcision (season 3, episode 1). There are both ups and downs with the foreskin. But waging the ups and downs should be done by adults that decide over their OWN BODY, not pushing their own sadistic opinions on other persons.

As for circumcision on children. When new born babies have their foreskin cut off, they rarely use any form of anesthetics. Why? "Because the baby is so small it can't really feel anything... and it won't remember the pain later in its life." - True that the baby might forget about it - just as you forget about the pain of breaking your leg when you went snowboarding 2-3 years ago... but a baby is actually over-sensitive to pain, and the foreskin is loaded with nerves. When babies are "quiet" and don't cry even if its cut off, it's not because they don't feel it, it's because they are paralyzed by the pain... It's fucking crazy that doctors can go to sleep at night without a huge amount of guilt hanging over them. It disgusts me...

As for adults cutting the skin off -- it's not anything more serious than body art, which I have nothing against. I'm even for plastic surgery. So yeah, that's just fair enough. You should have the right to do what you want with your own body without anyone telling you it's right or wrong :) It's just wrong that babies that can't say yes or no have to go through because someone else thinks they shoud.

A condom does the trick. Point is that this could lead you to think that circumcision is a CHOICE for the condom. Well, if you want full protection, you need the condom. And if you have the condom, why would you have to get circumcized?
There are both ups and downs. There are some studies that show un-circumcized people have less chance of getting some kinda infection (it was actually mentioned one in specific) in the urin-channel because of the natural protection of the foreskin. (However, another study said something else about another infection. Hahaha.) The foreskin gives the surface of the penis more friction, which actually helps when stimulating your partner sexually. Also, uncircumcized guys have a more sensitive head. Now, some might say that this will make them cum faster, allthough the difference there isn't much for "trained guys". But guys with a more sensitive heads will be able to enjoy a better orgasm.

And then you have the downs; - that the sensitive skin is easier to get small wounds and stuff, where sexual transmitted diseases will get to the blood in an instant. And I guess other diseases follow as well. But you know, I can't say that worries me. :p

All in all, it doesn't matter what the ups and downs are, cause they wage up against eachother imo. And if you have a condom all the disease-stuff is pointless to be discussing, cause they're out of the whole debate.

So in my opinion better safe than sorry would be to leave the dick alone. Hehehe.

Abstinence is the only guarenteed way. And if the condom rips, and you're circumzied, you may be able to save your life if you are with someone who has HIV.

Whether or not circumcision is ethical, that is another debate.

There should not be a need to even create a circumcision plan if people would just stop spreading the disease. It's really not that hard to not be promiscuous, and even then it's easy to get tested, or simply not sleep around with questionable people.

Sure, it may lower your chance of getting the disease when having sex with an infected person, but here's a wonderful idea: DON'T HAVE SEX WITH INFECTED PEOPLE. It's not complicated.

------
As for circumcision alone, the only benefit really of having done as a child is that the scarring is very minimal or apparant to adults who have it done. I think it's a big issue that many parents do not educate their children about their foreskin, or otherwise, and leave it up to schools to inform. I'll be honest, I didn't know until a few years ago that I wasn't circumcised, and I found out all by myself.

If you use a condom correctly, the chance of it ripping is like ... extremely minimal!! Hehehe. It's crazy what tests condoms go through to actually be allowed selling. And I think it's ALOT cheaper to show people correct use of condoms, than to start set up equipment and guidelines for circumcision in all the hugely HIV-affected countries, training people in the prosedure while keeping it all acceptably health-secured, and then have people come in for free circumcision.

You can't possibly even compare female genital mutilation with male circumcision.

FGM has nothing to do with religion, it's purely cultural and used to remove the sexual agency of young women in the most painful and barbaric way (and by the way it happens around the time when girls hit puberty). It goes hand in hand with female subordination to a patriarchy and to equate that to the argument against male circumcision which, I believe does none of the above, is just not right.

Though I'm not as opinionated in this matter as some of you, I'll have to side with the anti-circumcision brigade.
Afterall; your penis your choice, right?

I personally have nothing against circumcision. Sexually, I prefer circumcised genitals on guys. I don't believe it's a big deal at all.

I believe if the guy wants to do it, he should.
I dont agree with circumcision being done on babies.
i dont see how circumcision can help prevent aids/hiv
either way if u have sex with an infected person you will
get it..what is the difference?

No, actually there isn't a 100% chance of being infected when having sex with an infected person, even without a condom I don't think there is a 100% chance.

And I don't think it's that simple for a guy to want it and go do it. Atleast I'm torn up about doing it, because once it's gone, it's gone forever.

But you can do this nifty thing that's called foreskin restoration?

Well.. I guess there is that option..

:) I talked about that earlier. Either way you can get it back - or get it removed. Saying it shouldn't be removed at a young age - only means excessive pain when you're older if you want it done. And having it done - means waiting a year for it to be restored - thats a MUCH smaller price to pay than excruciating pain.


There was an article in the first post. Had you read it you'd have known what the issue at hand was about.

I hear aids can be passed by blood to blood contact too...I might just be dumb though.
I'm being a smartass yes because - many people with HIV don't know they have it. It can take 10 years before you see symptoms. Pricking your finger and touching a bandaid someone with HIV had that has blood on it or another bodily fluid could infect you. Our school carries HIV cleansing kits in the office. It's an oxygen spray you spray on blood anywhere in the school - HIV is killed by Oxygen in high concentration. So it's not that simple to know if you're infected or not, other than testing. Which not everyone is going to do. People in the 80's believed it was "Gay Cancer" because five gay men had it before anyone else in America. People today still believe it's a big gay diessease, even though the majority of people with it are heterosexual. Not to mention - a lot of people now think it's just from sex. It's not a pregnancy so it's not only transmitted by sex.

This abstinence education system the world is adopting is really realy sad. Nobody knows what's going on with anything anymore.

I also didn't get the impression that the article refers to boys being forced into it... but men having the opportunity. Maybe I got it wrong though.

Personally I would never even dare to have sex with someone who is infected... obviously you can't be 100% safe, I wouldn't find the sex enjoyable 'cause I'd be all worried throughout the whole thing :bum: But obviously this strategy isn't working out so well...

gotta agree there. un-cut dicks are ugly and wicked gross.

Anyway, I'm Jewish so I'm going to stay out of this debate, except to say that in the US as far as I know it is common practice to preform a circumsicion on a newborn boy, unless the parents request that they don't. It's cleaner in general to be cut... why? because bacteria and other foreign objects can't get trapped under the foreskin if it isn't there.

They have also done studies that say circumsicion prevents certain types of cancer. Sorry but cancer isn't exactly something you can avoid by putting on a condom.

Also, the US started preforming circumsicions routinely after WWII, because it is a well known fact that the Nazis use to make Jewish men drop their pants in the middle of the street to prove they were Jewish and humilate them.